Preliminary Injunction allows Tea Party shirt at Arizona Polls

[SargeUNN]

Source: Arizona Republic


Coconino County residents can wear at least one particular Flagstaff "tea party" T-shirt to their polling place on Nov. 2, according to a preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Court Judge James Tielborg on Wednesday.

The request for the injunction is part of a lawsuit filed by Flagstaff grandmother Diane Wickberg alleging that Coconino County Recorder Candace Owens "harassed, threatened, silenced, and chilled (Wickberg's) rights to freedom of speech and association by improperly enforcing electioneering law."


The recorder had decided that the Flagstaff tea party shirt Wickberg wore to vote on May 18 and Aug. 24 violated state election laws.

Wickberg was allowed to vote both times, the first time because no one else was in the polling place and the second time because she covered the shirt with a sweater.

Owens has filed a countersuit against Wickberg stating that she believes her decision was constitutional. However on Wednesday, Owens agreed to the injunction that allows Coconino County voters on Nov. 2 to wear the Flagstaff tea party shirt Wickberg wore depicting the American flag and the Constitution.

The injunction does not specifically apply to any other county or any other shirt design.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/21/20101021arizona-tea-party-shirt-settlement.html#ixzz131fGDw87

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/21/20101021arizona-tea-party-shirt-settlement.html

---

Read the whole article it is disturbing.

[secondwind]

1. Only in Arizona, folks.

[24601]

13. Actually - it's everywhere but in Florida. We received guidance

today from our General Counsel Ethics Office that the US Office of Special Counsel (Hatch Act enforcers) has ruled that the TEA party is non-partisan - except in Florida where somebody actually ran officially under their banner in a partisan race.

[SargeUNN]

2. The shirt is one issue but also notice

the part that says: Wickberg was allowed to vote both times, the first time because no one else was in the polling place and the second time because she covered the shirt with a sweater.

Wait she voted both times? I live in AZ. so do I get to vote more than once? This is extremely disturbing or the reporter is questionable.

[mrs_p]

3. i think it was because she voted on two different days

one in may and the other in august

[merwin]

4. That got me the first read through as well.

However, they are referring to the primary and general elections as the two times.

[SargeUNN]

5. yeah that explains it.

Thanks I did not think of that. Of course that is assuming they had early voting on that day or a runoff election, we still have a question about the both times.

[Journeyman]

6. From the comments at the first link. . .

She's a little teapot,
Short and stout,
Here is her handle
Here is her spout
When she gets all steamed up,
Hear her shout,
Tip her over and the BS pours out!

[classysassy]

9. Here,here my wife resent that

But I approve your message.

[pezDispenser]

10. that is funny

[The Philosopher]

7. A lot of times

especially in smaller precincts, some things are overlooked. It's no surprise she was allowed to wear the shirt when no one else was voting. It's a pragmatic choice on the Election Judge's part, even if it is against the rules. It happens. The second instance you're supposed to cover your shirt, because you can't vote while you wear a party-advocate shirt. The use of the shirt is called passive electioneering and it's frowned upon in sane society when it's inside a polling station.

I would never stand for this. What would happen if you stood up in the middle of a court and began talking about a football game? You'd be hauled out, maybe even charged with something. The polling station is the same way. It's a place where a voter can cast their vote without influence of an outside party. It's the point of time where the vote is THEIR decision. That's why when you help someone cast their ballot, you sign an agreement not to influence the voter in any way, but merely help them cast THEIR vote.

Imagine a voter being told by a party supporter, "If you don't vote our way, horrible things will happen." Then they insinuate what those things are, frightening the voter. Now imagine that voter being surrounded by people wearing that party's t-shirt. What do you think will happen? It's intimidation. And I can't imagine anyone arguing for it.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Rhenquist's ghost is appearing

[chelsea0011]

11. "does not apply to any other....tee shirt design" So I can't wear mine?

[merwin]

12. Hah!

I haven't seen that one before. And even better, it's censored and does not actually represent a political party, so it should be acceptable.